If you really want to go strange how about alcohol in space? A product of fermentation in space without an organic source? It's true!

Yes, there is a giant cloud of alcohol in outer space. It's in a region known as W3(OH), only about 6500 light years away. Unfortunately it is methyl alcohol (commonly known as wood alcohol, though this stuff is not derived from wood), so it isn't suitable for drinking. There is some ethyl alcohol (the drinkable kind) there as well, but it's not nearly as common.

Unlike me, buildit's never read "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway To The Inner Self," and yet he claims to know more about Robert waggoner and readily accepts his New Age stance. Hmmm...

Scientists know more about life than you imagine, buildit. I have already recommended some books about evolutionary biology where you can read about plausible theories on the origins of life and how lab experiments can stumble upon replicator molecules like RNA.

By the way, genetic units are not conscious human beings, therefore, chromosomes from male and female gametes prior to meiosis were never me. Even at the embryonic stage, where you have a conglomerate of a few cells, there is no self or individual consciousness. It's a pluripotent stage where a defined organism hasn't even begun to form.

It is preposterous and dead wrong to say a sentient being already exists then when we know from neuroscientific evidence that an active, complex brain is required for consciousness to occur.

So no, buildit... unpaired chromosomes do not identify with any human being. They are merely snippets of building blocks with structural "instructions" for an embryological process.

It's like saying a pirce of circuitry represents a working computer...[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:Unlike me, buildit's never read "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway To The Inner Self," and yet he claims to know more about Robert waggoner and readily accepts his New Age stance. Hmmm...

Your cognitive powers are really poor. I said I know who he is

I am remotely aware of who Robert Waggoner is even if I haven't read any of his books.

Lying is bad for your soul man.

Summerlander wrote: By the way, genetic units are not conscious human beings, therefore, chromosomes from male and female gametes prior to meiosis were never me. Even at the embryonic stage, where you have a conglomerate of a few cells, there is no self or individual consciousness. It's a pluripotent stage where a defined organism hasn't even begun to form.

So then a 1 year old baby is not by your definition alive? I mean is a baby conscious? Are you saying you remember being 1 year old? You really must define what you think is and isn't alive better. Scientifically speaking I'll help you out. The classical definition for life is something which reproduces, consumes, respires and grows. But some have argued this would include fire since flames can reproduce, consume materials, respire using oxygen and of course can grow and become larger. So is fire alive? Then we get to viruses. They neither respire nor grow and yet many in science would argue they are a form of life.So please provide your preferred definition of life to explain why individual parts of you such as seed and egg can't be considered "you".

It is preposterous and dead wrong to say a sentient being already exists then when we know from neuroscientific evidence that an active, complex brain is required for consciousness to occur.

Dam, the right to lifers must be camped outside your front door waiting to shoot you. I bet you are one of the people who think an abortion should be allowed in the third trimester.

Summerlander wrote:So no, buildit... unpaired chromosomes do not identify with any human being. They are merely snippets of building blocks with structural "instructions" for an embryological process.

It's like saying a piece of circuitry represents a working computer...

So as you stand today, how much of "you" is really "you"? I mean do the skin cells you shed comprise "you"? If you say yes, then why not the two original cells that produced the information every cells in your body uses to make every part of you?If you say No, then just where do you start? If I cut off a finger, is it you? If I pull a tooth, is that you? Or is it only when someone reaches the bare minimum of organs and tissue needed to put oxygen to your brain and nutrients in your cells that we get to what "you" exactly is? I have a picture in my head of the soldier in "John Got His Gun"

The problem anything you say about life is that Life is basically defined the same way that porn is by the US senate.... and I quote United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he tried to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

You Think you know what life is. But your knowledge of it is the same as everyone else and based on the same information because we've never seen life which if different from us. The most different life we have found is the Horse shoe crab. A fascinating animal whose blood isn't based on a hemoglobin like all other life. You should read about them and get a better perspective on what life is.

Unlike vertebrates, horseshoe crabs do not have hemoglobin in their blood, but instead use hemocyanin to carry oxygen. Because of the copper present in hemocyanin, their blood is blue.

It's never as simple as they make it out to be and the question of where life ends and where it begins won't be answered by a Frankenstein monster made in a biomedical lab.

Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

buildit, I don't have time to tackle all your fallacies about biology but I will say this: you have a lot of work to do as a scientist to convince the whole world of why you are so certain that our kind is immortal.

As for lying, I didn't. You are the one who oxymoronically said you only know Waggoner remotely and yet hail him as an expert on matters that you don't understand yourself. How can you claim someone to be an expert and wholly accept his stance when you haven't even looked into his literature? Do you even know what he claims?

By the way, who started talking about definitions of life? Let me tell you something, my pious friend: being alive does mean being conscious. Even living human's aren't conscious all the time and everybody knows the description of contents of consciousness hinges on memory and reportalibity.

Abortion is another matter altogether. I think it should be avoided. If it needs to be done then it should be done as early as possible as it is safer. I am certainly pro-choice. By the way buildit, nature performs its own abortions no matter what stage. Remember miscarriages?

And fire being alive? lol! Are you sure you're a scientist?

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:buildit, I don't have time to tackle all your fallacies about biology but I will say this: you have a lot of work to do as a scientist to convince the whole world of why you are so certain that our kind is immortal.

As for lying, I didn't. You are the one who oxymoronically said you only know Waggoner remotely and yet hail him as an expert on matters that you don't understand yourself. How can you claim someone to be an expert and wholly accept his stance when you haven't even looked into his literature? Do you even know what he claims?

By the way, who started talking about definitions of life? Let me tell you something, my pious friend: being alive does mean being conscious. Even living human's aren't conscious all the time and everybody knows the description of contents of consciousness hinges on memory and reportalibity.

Abortion is another matter altogether. I think it should be avoided. If it needs to be done then it should be done as early as possible as it is safer. I am certainly pro-choice. By the way buildit, nature performs its own abortions no matter what stage. Remember miscarriages?

And fire being alive? lol! Are you sure you're a scientist?

Reading this just shows you didn't really read anything I wrote. It's like trying to discuss the environment with a republican. Whatever you say gets twisted into meaning what they want to hear.

Where the hell are you getting that I claim Waggoner as an expert? You better get your eyes checked.

As for the Robert Waggoner comment. Well, I actually side with Summertime on the self serving nature of the situation in which a self pro ported expert says' I saw it in a dream. Now if he has some idea of how to pin point where the continuation is, that would be helpful.

-Please explain where I am making the statements you proclaim or stop lying!

And if being alive means being conscious, then you would call people who suffer from coma dead?

As for fire being alive, again, reread what I wrote. Under the classical definition of life it can be argued that fire could be considered alive because it meets the criteria. I did not say that fire is alive.

Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

Oops!! Actually, I meant to say, "...being alive doesn't necessarily mean being conscious." It was a typo. I was in a rush as I was getting ready for work.

On Robert Waggoner. I must have somehow misread you as I skimmed through the posts. My bad. But the core of my argument remains unchallenged.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

If there is an afterlife, buildit, I want you to find it and prove me wrong. But the only way you will do that is with incontrovertible asseverations backed by verified grounds. Agreed?

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:If there is an afterlife, buildit, I want you to find it and prove me wrong. But the only way you will do that is with incontrovertible asseverations backed by verified grounds. Agreed?

I think the whole point of our discourse is that there is no definitive answer. If there was proof one way or the other the discussion would be pointless.

Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?